When a serious allegation is made to the readers' editor about a published article, it is often not possible to come to a quick decision as to whether the complaint has merit or not. If there is sufficient prima facie evidence that the Guardian has made a serious mistake we may take the article down from the website pending further investigation. Sometimes we leave the article up but append a note such as this one, applied to a blog by Patrick Butler, the Guardian's social policy editor, which rested in part on the assumption that Andy Gale, a homelessness adviser, was employed by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG): "This article is subject to a complaint from the DCLG, which says that Andy Gale is not employed by the department and that it has no contractual arrangements with him."

This device seems fair to both complainant and reader if the evidence is not conclusive but a strong case has been made by a reputable individual, or body. The background to the story is that Butler suggested in the blog, posted on 13 November 2012, that ministers were "having it both ways" on the politically charged issue of whether homeless families should be moved to cheaper temporary accommodation outside London.

Butler pointed out that while ministers publicly disapproved of families being housed far from their home boroughs, the government's "own" homeless adviser, Andy Gale, was suggesting at private briefings that councils might want to do exactly this, using new powers given to them by the government.

Within an hour of the blog going up, a DCLG press officer contacted Butler and demanded that it be taken down. The spokesman said that Gale "is not employed or seconded by the DCLG" and that his "alleged advice was not paid for, or commissioned by, or given to DCLG". The press officer followed it up with an email to the readers' editor: "After the blog appeared, Mr Gale was contacted by senior officials and he has accepted that he should not allow himself to be presented as a government adviser… Given the central premise of the article is built around this inaccurate claim [Gale working for DCLG] I would therefore ask that the blog is removed in the next hour and because it has been incorrectly online since 3pm yesterday … that a correction is issued to your readers."

The blog was based on remarks by Gale at a housing conference where he had presented himself as an adviser on homelessness for the DCLG. After the department's denial, Butler contacted Gale, who said he was not a policy adviser to the DCLG but worked for the department as a "practitioner adviser" two days a week, paid through a third party. After the notice of complaint was appended, Butler began to get reports from people who were surprised at the DCLG's denial of Gale's connection. It emerged that Gale had been using an active DCLG email address up to a few days before the blog appeared.

On 16 November I emailed the DCLG. I told the department that I agreed the Guardian should have contacted the department before publication – it didn't – and I was happy to amend the blog but was in some difficulty establishing just what Gale's relationship with the DCLG was. "It would help my investigation if you are able to explain how Gale was able to use a DCLG email account to confirm conference-speaking appearances as a DCLG adviser." I didn't receive a reply. A few days later, Butler made a freedom of information request to Newham council to check the nature of its relationship with Gale.

As a result of that request Butler received copies of emails between the council and the DCLG dating from 3 February 2012. These revealed that a DCLG official had asked Newham to "host" Gale and offered to fund his salary and expenses.

The official wrote: "I believe Andy has spoken to you about Newham hosting Andy Gale to continue to provide support to local authorities to tackle homelessness. I would be most grateful if Newham are able to help in this respect. The objective is for Andy to continue to provide support for two days a week to local authorities. DCLG would provide additional grant funding to Newham this financial year of £72,000."

In answer to a written parliamentary question on 13 December 2012 by Karen Buck, MP for Westminster North, the DCLG continued to maintain that Gale does not work for them or speak for the government. The DCLG said it had "provided grant funding to a number of local authorities to support the provision of advice on preventing homelessness" but while officials may have spoken to the local authorities about how the money has been spent, ministers hadn't.

Despite that answer, I think the original complaint looks a tad disingenuous and no longer feel it is appropriate to continue running the warning on the blog. The notice will therefore be removed.